Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 2 (1 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 2 · Chapter 2 (1 of 3)

p. 487CHAP. II. The State of the Controversie about Images in the Christian Church.

HAving thus far endeavoured to State the Dispute about Image-worship, §. 1.as it was managed between Christians and Heathens, I now come to the Rise and Progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church. Wherein I shall proceed according to these following Periods, 1. When Images were not used or allowed in the Christian Church. 2. When they were used, but no worship allowed to be given to them. 3. When inferiour worship was given to them, and that worship publickly defended. 4. When the doctrine and practice of Image-worship was settled upon the principles allowed and defended in the Roman Church; and from thence to shew, wherein lie the main points of difference between us and the Church of Rome, as to this Controversie about the Worship of Images.

1. As to the First Period I had said in my former Discourse, That the Primitive p. 488Christians were declared enemies to all worship of God by Images, but I need the less to go about to prove it now, since it is at last confessed by one of the most learned Iesuits they ever had, that for the four first Centuries and farther, there was little or no use of Images in the Temples, Petav. Dogmat. Theolog. Tom. 5. l. 15. c. 1…. sec…. 3. c. …4. sect. 8.or Oratories of Christians: but we need not their favour in so plain a Cause as this; as shall be evidently proved if occasion be farther given. This T. G. had no mind to;T.G. p. 171. and therefore saith, Not to Dispute the matter of fact, of which he confesses there was some little use (much as if I should say, that T. G. hath shewn little or no ingenuity in his Book, and he to his great comfort should infer there was some little ingenuity in it) but Petavius his words, are supprimi omittique satius visum est, it was thought better to suppress them and let them alone; was it all one in T. G's sense to use them, and to omit the use of them? And for the little reason, he saith, he had to doubt my sincerity in relating Petavius his words, from what I did with Trigautius; in truth there was as little as might be; but I have great reason to believe from his usage of me about other citations, that if he could have found any words before or after, that he could have p. 489interpreted to another sense, he would have made little or no conscience of saying, those were the words I translated thus and thus. But instead of debating the matter of fact as to the Primitive Church, he saith, he will give me the answer of Mr. Thorndike, that at that time there might be jealousie of Offence in having Images in Churches, before Idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might be no appearance; and therefore they were afterwards admitted all over, for it is manifest, the Church is tyed no farther, than there can appear danger of Idolatry. This, he calls Mr. Thorndikes answer, but it is truly the answer of Petavius, from whose words it seems to be translated; dum periculum erat, saith Petavius, ne offensionis aliquid traheret externa quorundam rituum species, cum iis que ab Ethnicis celebrabantur, similitudine ipsa congruens, &c. Therefore I shall consider it as the answer of Petavius, and here examine, whether this were the ground on which the Primitive Church did forbear the use and worship of Images? I shall prove that it was not from these two Arguments. 1. Because the Reasons given by them against the worship of Images will equally hold against the worship of Images p. 490among Christians. 2. Because the notion of Idolatry, which they charged the Heathens with, may be common to Christians with them.

1. This supposes the Primitive Christians to look on the worship of Images as in it self indifferent, and to be made good or evil according to the nature of the object represented by them: which is a supposition as remote from the sense of the Primitive Church as any thing we can easily imagine. For then all the arguments used by them against the worship of Images must have been deduced only from the objects represented, or the nature of the worship given to them; whereas they frequently argue from the unsuitableness of Images as a Means of worship, and the prohibition of the Divine Law. Would any man of common sense that had thought the worship of Images in it self indifferent, have said as Origen doth;Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375. that the Christians as well as the Iews abstain from the worship of Images for the sake of the Law of God, which requires rather that we should dye than defile our selves with such impieties? Yes, it may be said, this is acknowledged that the Law of God did forbid the worship of the Heathen Images; but they who make this answer never looked p. 491into Origen, or have forgotten what they read there; for Origen doth not there give an account why the Christians did not comply with the Heathen Idolatry; but why the Christians had no Images in their own worship. For Celsus charges this upon the Christians, that they thought it such a mighty matter, that they had no Images, whereas herein, saith he, they were but like the barbarous Scythians, Numidians, and Seres, and other Nations that had neither Religion, nor civility. To this Origen answers, that we are not only to look at the bare action, but at the reason and ground of it, for those that agree in the same thing, may yet have very different principles; and they that do it on a good principle do well, and not otherwise; as for instance, the Stoicks forbear adultery, and so may the Epicureans; but the former do it, because it is a thing repugnant to Nature, and civil Society; the latter, because allowing themselves this single pleasure may debar them of many more: so, saith he, in this matter those barbarous Nations forbear Images on other accounts than Iews and Christians do, who dare not make use of this way of worshipping God. Observe, that he doth not say this of the way of worshipping false Gods, or Images p. 492for Gods, but of worshippin foreign the Deity. And he gives three principal reasons wherein they differed from those Nations. 1. Because this way of worship did disparage the Deity; (foreign again) by drawing it down to matter so fashioned. 2. Because the evil spirits were apt to harbour in those Images, and to take pleasure in the sacrifices there offered: which reason as far as it respects the blood of Sacrifices doth relate to the Heathen Images, standing over the Altars at which the Sacrifices were offered. But then Celsus might say, what is all this to the purpose? my question is, why you have no Images in your own way of worship; therefore he adds his third reason, which made it utterly unlawful for Christians as well as Iews to worship them, which is the Law of God mentioned before: now I say, if Origen answered pertinently, he must give this as the Reason why Christians used no Images in their own way of worship; and consequently was so far from thinking the worship of Images indifferent, that he thought Christians ought rather to suffer Martyrdom than to worship them. But to put this beyond possibility of contradiction; Origen mentions a saying of Heraclitus objected by Celsus, that it is a foolish thing p. 493to pray to Images, unless a man know the Gods and Heroes worshipped by them; which saying Celsus approves, and saith, the Christians were Fools, because they utterly contemned Images, (in totum, the Latin interpreter renders it) To which Origen thus answers, we acknowledge that God may be known, and his only Son, and those whom he hath honoured with the Title of Gods, who partake of his Divinity, and are different from the Heathen Deities which the Scripture calls Devils (i.e. causally if not essentially, as Cajetan distinguisheth) but, saith he, it is impossible for him that knows God to worship Images. Mark that, he doth not say, it is impossible for him that knows the Idols of the Heathens to worship them; or the evil spirits that lurk in their Images: but for him, that knows the true God, and his Son Christ Iesus, and the holy Angels to do it. Is it possible after this, to believe that Origen supposed the worship of Images to be indifferent in it self, and that God and Christ and Angels might be lawfully worshipped by them? Was all this only periculum offensionis, jealousie of offence, before the Heathen Idolatry was rooted out? Which supposition makes the primitive Christians in plain terms jugglers and impostors, p. 494to pretend that to be utterly unlawful even for themselves to do; and to mean no more by it, but this; yes, it is unlawful to do it, while there is any danger of Heathenism, but when once that is overthrown, then we may worship Images as well as the best of them. For my part, I believe the primitive Christians to have been men of so much honesty and integrity, that they would never have talked at this rate against the worship of Images, (as not only Origen, but the rest of them, the best, and wisest among them did, as I have shewed in the foregoing Chapter) if they had this secret reserve in their minds, that when Heathenism was sunk past recovery, then they might do the same things, which they utterly condemned now. Which would be just like some that we have heard of, who while there was any likelyhood of the Royal Authority of this Nation recovering itself, then they cry'd out upon Kingly Government as illegal, Tyrannical and Antichristian; but when the King was murdered, and the power came into their own hands, then it was lawful for the Saints to exercise that power, which was not fit to be enjoyed by the Wicked of the World: So these men make the most excellent Christians to be p. 395like a pack of Hypocrites. The Heathens every where asked them, as may be seen in Lactantius, Arnobius, Minucius and others, as well as Origen; what is the matter with you Christians, that you have no Images in your Churches? what if you dare not joyn with us in our worship, why do not you make use of them in your own? Is it only humour, singularity, and affectation of Novelty in You? If it be, you shew what manner of men you are. No truly; say they, gravely and seriously, we do it not, because we dare not do it; for we are afraid of displeasing and dishonouring God by it, and we will on that account rather choose to dye than do it. Upon such an answer, the Heathens might think them honest and simple men, that did not know what to do with their lives, who were so willing to part with them on such easie terms. But if they had heard, the bottom of all this was, only a cunning and sly trick to undermine Paganism, and that they meant no such thing, as though it were unlawful in it self, but only unlawful till they had gotten the better of them; what would they have thought of such men? no otherwise, than that they were a company of base Hypocrites, that pretended one thing and meant another; and that the p. 496Wicked of the World might not worship Images, but the Saints might, when they had the Power in their hands, although before they declaimed against it, as the most vile, mean, and unworthy way of worship, that ever came into the heads of men; that there could be no Religion, where it obtained; that it was worse than the worship of Beasts; that it was more reasonable to worship the artificers themselves than the Images made by them; that rats and mice had less folly than mankind, for they had no fears of what men fell down before, with trembling and great shews of devotion. These, and many such things as these, the Fathers speak freely, openly, frequently, on all occasions, in all places against the worship of Images; and after all this, was no more meant by it but only this, Thou O Heathen must not worship Images, but I may? And why not as well (might the Heathen reply) Thou must not commit adultery, but I may? Does the nature of the commands you boast so much of alter with mens persons? Is that indeed lawful for you that is not for us? Where doth the Law of Moses say, Thou shalt not worship the Images that we worship, but thou maist worship the Images that Christians worship? And if the Law p. 497makes no difference, either leave off your foolish babbling against our Images, or condemn your own. For to our understanding, yours are as much against the Law as ours are.

And so the primitive Christians thought, who very honestly and sincerely declared as much in their words and actions;§. 2. witness not only the opinions of all the Writers in behalf of Christianity, (not one excepted) that ever had occasion to mention this matter; but the Decree of as good a Council as was to be had at that time; I mean the Eliberitan, in the famous Canon to that purpose, Can. 36. It pleaseth us to have no pictures in Churches, lest that which is worshipped be painted upon walls. It is a pleasant thing to see what work our Adversaries make with this innocent Canon; sometimes, it is a meer forgery of hereticks (I wonder such men do not say the same of the second Commandment) sometimes, the Bishops that met there were not so wise as they should have been; (no nor Moses and the Prophets, nor Christ and the primitive Christians in this matter) sometimes, that they spake only against pictures upon walls (because the Salt-Peter of the walls would be apt to deface them; or p. 498because in case of persecution, they could not do as Rachel did, carry their Teraphim along with them); but that which Petavius sticks to,Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 14. sect. 8. is, that the Memory of Heathen Idolatry was yet fresh, and therefore it was not thought expedient to have Images in the Oratories or Temples of Christians. So that, after all the tricks and shifts of our Adversaries, the thing it self is yielded to us, viz. that this Canon is against such Images, as are now used and worshipped in the Roman Church. But, saith he, the reason doth not hold still, for then the memory of Heathen Idolatry was not out of mens minds. It is a wonderful thing to me, that these Spanish Bishops should be able to tell their own reason no better than so. You say, you will have no Images in Churches: why so I beseech you? Lest that, say they, which is worshipped be painted upon walls: worshipped by whom? do you mean by Heathens? no, we speak of the Churches of Christians. But why may not that which is worshipped be painted? We think that reason enough to any man, that considers the Being worshipped, and that which is painted, and the mighty disparagement to an infinite invisible Being to be drawn in lines and colours with a design to honour him thereby. p. 499This to me seems a reason that holds equally at all times. For was the Being worshipped more unfit to be drawn so soon after Heathen Idolatry, than he would be afterwards? methinks it had been much better done then, while the skilful Artificers were living. But those were Heathen Idolaters; suppose they were, you must make use of them, or none, if that which Tertullian and others say, hold true, that it is forbidden to Christians to make Images; which surely they would never have said, if they had thought the time would come, when the Heathen Idolatry should be forgotten, and then the Christians might worship Images. Well; but all this is only against Pictures upon walls, but for all that, saith Bellarmin, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9.they might have Images in Frames, or upon Veils. It seems then that which is adored, might be painted well enough, provided it be not upon a wall; but methinks, it is more repugnant to an infinite Being to be confined within a Frame, than to be drawn upon a wall: and the Decree is, to have no pictures in Churches; but if they were in Frames, or upon Veils, would they not be in Churches still? What made Epiphanius then so angry at seeing an Image upon a Veil at Anablatha? S. Epiph. ep. ad Ioh. Hierosolym.Was not Heathen Idolatry forgotten p. 500enough yet? It seems not, for it was coming in again under other pretences. But that good mans spirit was stirred within him at the apprehension of it, and could not be quiet, till he had rent asunder the Veil, and written to the Bishop of Hierusalem to prevent the like enormity. One would have thought by this time the jealousie of Offence might have been worn out, the Heathen Idolatry being suppressed; but yet it seems Epiphanius did not understand his Christian Liberty in this matter. Nay so far from it, that he plainly and positively affirms, that such an Image though upon a Veil and not the Walls, was contra autoritatem Scripturarum, contra Religionem nostram, against the Law of God, and the Christian Religion. But it may be, this was some Heathen Idol, or Image of a False God; no, so far from it, that Epiphanius could not tell whether it was an Image of Christ, or of some Saint; but this he could tell, that he was sure it was against the Authority of the Scriptures. And was Epiphanius so great a Dunce to imagine a thing indifferent in it self, and applyed to a due object of worship, should be directly opposite to the Law of God? Men may talk of the Fathers, and magnifie the Fathers, and seem to make the Authority of the Fathers p. 501next to infallible; and yet there are none who expose them more to contempt, than they who give such answers as these, so directly against the plainest sense and meaning of their words. I confess, those speak more consonantly to their principles, who reject the Authority of this Epistle, at least of this part of it; but there is not the least colour or pretence for it, from any M S. and Petavius ingenuously confesseth, that he sees no ground to believe this part added to the former epistle. God be thanked, there is some little ingenuity yet left in the World: and which is the greater wonder, among the Iesuits too; for not only Petavius, but Sirmondus owns the Epistle of Epiphanius to be genuine, Sirmond. in Concil. Narbon. p. 616.quoting it to prove the Antiquity of Veils at the entrance of the Church. If it be good for that purpose, it is I am sure as good for ours; and so it was thought to be, by those who were no Iconoclasts, I mean the Author of the Caroline Books, Carol. M. de Imag. l. 4. c. 25. Synod. Paris. c. 6.and the Gallican Bishops who made use of this Testimony, although themselves were against rending of painted Veils. But commend me to the plain honesty of Iohn Damascen, Damasc. tract. 1.who saith, one Swallow makes no Summer; and of Alphonsus à Castro, Alphons. à à Castro v. Imago. p. 572.who tells us, that Epiphanius was an Iconoclast, (i. e. p. 502a terrible heretick with a hard name) materially so but not formally, because the Church had not determined the contrary. It seems it was no matter, what the Law, or Christian Religion had determined; for those were the things Epiphanius took for his grounds. But he, good man, was a little too hot in this matter, and did not consider, that when the Pagan Idolatry was sufficiently out of mens minds, then it would be very lawful to have Christ or Saints not only drawn upon Veils, or Screens, but to have just such Statues as the Pagans had; and to give them the very same worship which the Prototypes deserve; provided, that the people have forgotten Mercury, Apollo, and Hercules; and put S. Francis, or S. Ignatius, or S. Christopher, or S. Thomas Beckett instead of them. O the Divine power of names! for that which would have been Idolatry, downright Paganish Idolatry under the former names, becomes good Catholick Worship under the latter. But I do not see that any of the Primitive Christians did ever think, that the change of names, or persons would have wrought such wonders; but that the worship of Images would have continued the same thing, whatever names had been p. 503given to them. And what pleasant stories soever Epiphanius the Deacon tells in the second Council of Nice, concerning the disciples of the elder Epiphanius, VII. Synod. Act. 6.Acts 6placing his Image in a Church dedicated to him in Cyprus, yet Petavius confesses, that in his time there were no Images in the Churches of Cyprus, which he takes to be the reason of his mighty zeal against them. Any thing rather than that which himself gives, viz. the Authority of Scriptures, and the Christian Religion.

In the Theodosian Code we find a Law of Theodosius M. against the several parts of the Heathen Idolatry, Cod. Theodos. 16. tit. 10. n. 12.the sacrifices, libations, incense, lights, &c. and after the rest, it comes particularly to their worship of Images in these words, Si quis vero mortali opere facta, & avum passura simulachra imposito ture venerabitur, (ac ridioulo exemplo metuens subito quae pro se simulaverit) vel redimita vitis arbore, vel erectâ effossis arâ cespitibus vanas imagines, humiliore licet muneris praemio, tamen plena Religionis injuriâ honorare temptaverit, is utpote violatae Religionis reus eâ domo seu possessione multabitur in quâ eum Gentilitiâ constiterit Superstitione famulatum. The meaning whereof is, that it was the forfeiture p. 504of house and land for any man to offer incense to Images made by men, and that were of a perishing nature; or that hung their garlands on Trees, or raised Altars of Turf before their Images; for although the cost were less, yet the violation of Religion was the same. This Constitution I grant doth respect Heathen Images, but I say it proceeds upon such grounds which are common to all Images, unless they be such as drop from heaven; such as the Image of Edessa, and the rest mentioned by Gretser, or that of Diana of Ephesus, or some few others that were pretended to have a divine Original; for such as these the Constitution doth not reach, being Divine and immortal, but for all others I do not see how they can escape the Reason of this Law. And it is altogether as ridiculous for Christians to worship the things they have formed, as it was for the Heathens to do it: (where T. G. may learn the signification and Etymology of simulachrum, à simulando; for simulare is the same with effigiare, as the Scholiast on that Constitution tells him.) In the same Constitution, they are called sensu carentia simulachra, which are words put in on purpose to shew how stupid and senseless the worship of them is; and are not all Images p. 505among Christians so? Have they not eyes and see not, and ears and hear not, as well as the Heathen Images? Or do they worship only living and sensible Images? moving I grant sometimes they do; such as Themistius upon Aristotle tells us that Daedaelus made,Themist. in Aristot. de an. p. 68. col. 2. that moved by the help of quicksilver; or springs, such as the Holy Rood of Boxtel in Kent, Lambards peramb. of Kent in Boxtel. Herberts Hen. 8. p. 432.whose secret engines for moving the eyes and lips were laid open, and an Anatomy Lecture read upon them at Pauls Cross in Henry the Eighths time by Bishop Fisher.

2. That Notion of Idolatry which the Heathens were charged with by the primitive Christians, §. 3.may be common to Christians with them. Therefore if the fear of Idolatry kept them from the worship of Images, and the same fear may justly continue where ever Images are worshipped, then the Christians rejecting of Images, was not upon any reason peculiar to that Age of the Church. If men by being Christians were uncapable of being Idolaters without renouncing Christianity, there were some pretence for laying aside the fears and jealousies of Idolatry, when the Christian Religion had prevailed in the world. But S. Paul supposes that Christians continuing so might be Idolaters, p. 506Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them. 1 Cor. 10.7.1 Cor 10:7Yet these were the Persons who were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the Sea;v. 2, 3, 4. and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink (for they drank of that rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.) Which water they drank of, both before and after their Idolatry (and since the water followed them,) at the very time of committing it; so that those persons are said to be partakers of Christ, who were charged with Idolatry, and therefore S. Paul is far from supposing that Idolatry and the profession of Christianity are inconsistent with each other. But it is said that there can be no Idolatry to the Images of Christ, because the true object of worship is honoured by them; nor to the Images of Saints, so long as men take them for Saints, that is, Gods Creatures; and give only an inferiour worship to them. If this be true, there appears to be little danger of Idolatry among those who do not renounce Christianity. But against this plea I put in these exceptions.

1. That upon the same grounds all the Wiser Heathens must be cleared from Idolatry. For, 1. They owned the true Object of Divine worship, viz. One Supreme God, as I p. 507have at large proved in the former Discourses: both, those that went on the Platonick hypothesis of one Supreme Deity, and others inferiour; and those who believed one God to be worshipped under different representations. The former was the principle which Iulian went upon, and the latter Platonists, who opposed Christianity to the utmost: the other was the principle of the Stoicks and others; and particularly owned by Maximus Madaurensis, who saith,S. Aug. Epist. 43. that the Heathens did worship one God under several names, thereby to express his several powers diffused through the World. Now upon this supposition, that where there is a true object of worship represented, there can be no Idolatry in worshipping the representation, I challenge any man to shew how the Heathens that went on these principles were chargeable with Idolatry. For is Christ any otherwise a right object of worship, than as he is believed to be the True God? if then there can be no Idolatry towards an Image of Christ, neither can there be towards any representation of the True God.

2. The Heathens did assert the difference between God and his Creatures, as I have already proved, that they looked on their inferiour Deities, as dependent on p. 508the supreme Being Created and Governed by Him: so that if the acknowledgement of Saints to be Gods Creatures, doth hinder men from committing Idolatry, it must do the same for all those who owned a subordination of Deities; which takes in the far greatest part of the Heathen World.

3. They allowed the different degrees of worship suitable to the excellencies of the objects; as Soveraign worship to the supreme God, inferiour worship to the Gods under Him, and so proportionably till they came to their Heroes, or Deified persons to whom they allowed the lowest kind and degree of worship. For it is a palpable mistake in any who think they did give the same degrees of honour and worship to all. Plutarch saith,Plut. de Iside & Osiride p. 361. That Plato did put a difference between the worship of Coelestial Gods and Daemons; and so did Xenocrates between the worship of Gods and good Daemons, and those sowre and morose, and vindictive Spirits which lived in the Air. Plato, he tells us, made it the office of good Daemons to carry mens Prayers to the Gods, and to bring from them Oracles, and other Divine Gifts: and so their worship must be suitable to their imployment, which is inferiour to that of the Coelestial Deities, whose station and p. 509employment was more immediately under the supreme God. Apuleius thus reckons up the order of Deities according to Plato. 1. The supreme God, the Author and Ruler of all. Apul. de Deo Socrat.2. The Coelestial Deities, spiritual, immortal, good, and infinitely happy; to whom the Government of things is committed next under God; but because they supposed no immediate communication between these Coelestial Gods and men, therefore they ranked between them and men, 3. Daemons, as Intercessors between the Gods and men, who were subservient to the Coelestial Gods. 4. The lowest sort of Daemons, he saith, are souls discharged of the body; which if they take care of their posterity, are called Lares, or domestick Gods (Lar, in the old Hetruscan Language, signifies a Prince, thence the Lares are the Gods of Families) and those who were good had the Title of Gods for honours sake conferred upon them, as he speaks. But he confesses, That there was a peculiar honour belonging to the supreme God, Cum sit summi Deorum hic honor proprius; and him they did solemnly invocate, as not only appears by frequent passages in Plato, but by that of Boethius;Boeth. de Cons. Philos. l. 3. p. 139. For, as Plato saith, we ought to invocate the p. 510divine assistance in the least affairs; therefore in so great a matter, invocandum rerum omnium Patrem, we ought to call upon God the Father of all things. Next after him they prayed to the Coelestial Deities; which prayers, the inferiour order of Spirits was to carry up, and to bring down answers. So that the addresses were made to the Coelestial Deities, which the Aereal Daemons carried to them, saith Apuleius, to keep a due distance between Gods and men. And although the other Platonists differ from Apuleius in the manner of reckoning up the several orders of inferiour Deities, as may be seen in Alcinous, Proclus, Iamblichus, and others; yet they all agree in making one Supreme God, the First Author and Cause of all things, and therefore making an infinite distance between him and his Creatures; and that there are several degrees of the Beings that are to be worshipped under him; some as the Bestowers of Blessings but subordinate to the supreme, and others only as Intercessors between the Gods and Men. Diogenes Laertius saith of Pythagoras, Diog. Laer. vit. Pytha.That he charged his Disciples, not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and Heroes. Herodotus saith of the Greeks, Herod. in Euterpe.That they worshipped Hercules p. 511two waies, one as an immortal Deity, and so they sacrificed to him; and another as a Hero, and so they celebrated his memory. Isocrates distinguisheth between the Honours of Heroes and Gods, when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena: Isocr. encom. Helen.but the distinction is no where more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the Statue of Regilla, wife to Herodes Atticus, as Salmasius thinks,Salmas. Not. ed. Inscript. p. 81. which was set up in his Temple at Triopium, and taken from the Statue it self by Sirmondus; where it is said, That she had neither the honour of a Mortal, nor yet that which was proper to the Gods. foreign. If any ask wherein the difference of these honours lay; Lilius Gyraldus saith,Lil. Gyrald. synt. Deorum 17. p. 501. That the Gods were worshipped to the East, the Heroes to the West. Vossius thinks,Vossius de Idol. l. 1. c. 12. That among the Greeks and Romans, it lay in having their Images carried in the publick Processions, but without Sacrifices; and their names put into the Saliar Hymns at Rome; and inserted into the Peplus of Minerva at Athens. Hesychius makes the honour of a Hero to lie in a Temple, Hesych. v. foreign.a Statue, and a Fountain; but Plutarch in the Life of Alexander saith, That he sent to the Oracle of Ammon to know whether Hephaestion should p. 512be made a God or no; the Oracle answered, That they should honour him and sacrifice to him as to a Hero; whence we observe that the material act of sacrifice, as T. G. speaks, might be common to Gods and Heroes, but the inward intention of the mind made the great difference between their worship, besides that which is expressed in the Inscription of Regilla, viz. that the honour of one sort was looked on as a voluntary Act, but the other was a necessary duty; they might sacrifice and pray to the Heroes (who were the Beati amongst them) but no man was absolutely bound to do it; but those who were devout and Religious would: as Salmasius there explains the words of the Inscription. Salmas. not. p. 118.And it is observed by the Criticks, that among the Greeks foreign and foreign are words of a different importance, i. e. in the Language of the Court of Rome, to Beatify, and to Canonize. For I perceive the Heathen Heroes did stand upon their preferment as well as the Roman Saints, and those who had been Beatified a competent time, came to be Canonized at last: So Plutarch saith,Plut. de Isule & Osinide p. 361. Plut. de praecl. fact. Mulier. p. 255. of Isis and Osiris, Hercules and Bacchus, that for their Vertues, of good Daemons they were promoted to Deities; and of Lampsaca, That she had at p. 513first only Heroical honour given her, and afterwards came to Divine. It seems by the Inscription of Herodes, and by the Testament of Epicteta extant in Greek in the Collection of Inscriptions, Inscript. Antiq. p. 216.that it was in the power of particular Families to keep Festival daies in honour of some of their own Family, and to give Heroical honours to them. In that noble Inscription at Venice, we find three daies appointed every year to be kept, and a Confraternity established for that purpose with the Laws of it; the first day to be observed in Honour of the Muses, and Sacrifices to be offered to them as Deities; the second and third in honour of the Heroes of the Family; between which honour, and that of Deities, they shewed the difference by the distance of time between them and the preference given to the other. But wherein soever the difference lay, that there was a distinction acknowledged among them appears, by this passage of Valerius in his excellent Oration extant in Dionysius Halicarnass. Dionys. Halic. Antiq. Rom. l. 11. p. 696.I call, saith he, the Gods to witness, whose Temples, and Altars, our Family hath worshipped with common Sacrifices; and next after them, I call the Genii of our Ancestors, to whom we give foreign the second Honours next to the Gods (as p. 514Celsus calls those foreign the due honours that belong to the lower Daemons;Orig. l. 8. c. Cels. p. 414. which he contends ought to be given to them) From which we take notice, that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship, giving to the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the Coelestial Deities, or the supreme God: So that if the distinction of divine worship will excuse from Idolatry, the Heathens were not to blame for it.

2. If this pretence doth excuse from Idolatry, the Carpocratian Hereticks were unjustly charged by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and S. Augustin;Iren. l. 1. c. 24. Epiph. haer. 27. Aug. de haeres. c. 7. for they are said, To worship the Images of Christ together with the Philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Wherein lay the fault of these Hereticks? was it only in joyning the Philosophers together with Christ? If that had been all, it had been easie to have said, That they worshipped the Philosophers together with Christ; but they take particular notice of it as a thing unusual and blame-worthy, that they worshipped the Images of Christ, which they pretended to have had from Pilat: which had been no wonder, if there had been as many Images of Christ then extant, as Feuardentius pretends, viz. the Image of Christ taken by Nicodemus (not I suppose p. 515when he came by night to our Saviour) that at Edessa, besides those which S. Luke drew of Him; if there had been so many Images abroad of Him in veneration among Christians, why should this be pitched upon as a peculiar thing of these Gnosticks, That they had some Images painted, others made of other matters, which they crowned and set forth, or worshipped as the Heathens did, among which was an Image of Christ, as Irenaeus reports it? And supposing they had worshipped the Images of Christ as the Gentiles did worship their Images, wherein were they to blame, if the honour given to the Image be not the honour of the Image, but of that which is represented by it? And since Christ deserves our highest worship, on this pretence they deserved no blame at all in giving divine worship of the highest degree to the Image of Christ.

3. The Primitive Christians did utterly refuse to worship the Images of Emperors, although they were acknowledged to be Gods Creatures therefore I say, according to their sense, acknowledging the Saints to be Gods Creatures, is not a sufficient ground to excuse the worship of the Images of Saints from Idolatry. As in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan (mentioned before) p. 516one of the tryals of Christians was, whether they would Imagini tuae thure ac vino supplicare; use the Religious rites that were then customary, of Incense, Libation, and Supplication before the Emperours Image; this Minucius calls ad Imagines supplicare, to pray before their Images: which Pliny saith, No true Christian could ever be brought to: but would rather suffer Martyrdom than do it. S. Hierome speaking of Nebuchadnezzars Image, saith,Hieron. in c. 3. Daniel. Statuam seu Imaginem cultores Dei adorare non debent; the worshippers of God ought not to worship an Image; Let, saith he, the Iudges and Magistrates take notice of this, that worship the Emperours Statues; that they do that which the three Children pleased God by not doing. By which we see, it was not only the Statues of Heathen Emperours, which the Christians refused to give Religious worship to; but of the most pious and Christian; which out of the flattery of Princes, those who expected, or received Honours, were willing to continue under Christian Emperours; but it was at last absolutely forbidden by a Constitution of Theodosius; of which I have spoken already, in the Discourse about the Nature of divine worship. But upon what reason came this to p. 517be accounted unlawful among Christians; if it were lawful to worship the Images of Saints, supposing them to be Gods Creatures? Is it possible they should think the Emperours to be otherwise? I do not think that the Souldiers who were trepann'd by Iulian, to offer Incense to his Image at the receiving the Donative (and after they understood what they did, were ready to run mad with indignation at themselves, crying out in the Streets, We are Christians, and ran to the Emperour, desiring they might suffer Martyrdom for the Christian faith, which they were supposed to deny by that act of theirs, as Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret relate the story) did imagine that Iulian was any other than one of Gods Creatures; Greg. Nazianz. invect. 1. in in Iul. Theod. hist. l. 3. c. 16, 17.or that they had any belief of his being a God; but the Christians looked on the act it self of offering incense, as unlawful to be done to the Image of any Creature; or to the Image it self, because it was a Creature, and that of the meanest sort, viz. the Work of mens hands.

4. It is not enough for any of Gods Creatures to be worshipped under the Notion of Saints; if any worship be given to them, which is above the rank of Creatures, i. e. any of that worship which belongs to God. For none can have greater p. 518confidence of the Saintship of any Persons whose Images they worshipped, (those excepted which are revealed in Scripture) than many of the Heathens had of the goodness of the Deities which they worshipped. And if we observe the method, which Origen, S. Cyril, S. Augustin and other Christian Writers took to prove them to be evil Spirits which they worshipped, we shall find the great argument was from the Nature of the worship given to them. For, say they, we find in Scripture that good Angels have refused that worship which they seem so desirous of; and therefore there is just reason to suspect that these are not good Angels; (although they firmly believed them to be so, and Hierocles saith,Hierocl. in aur. Carm. God forbid we should worship any other; And the Heathens in S. Augustin, Aug. in Psal. 96.Ps 96say peremptorily, they did not worship Devils, but Angels and the servants of the Great God.) So say I, as to those who are worshipped under the name of Saints or Angels, if in, or at their Images such things are spoken or done, which tend to the encouraging that worship which the Primitive Christians refused as Idolatry, there is the same reason still to suspect those are not good but evil Spirits; under whose name or representation soever they appear. For it is as p. 519easie for them to play the same tricks among Christians, which they did among Heathens; for then they pretended to be Good Spirits, and why may they not do the same still? If we have a fuller discovery of their design to impose upon the world, the folly of men is so much the greater to be abused by them; and the Gentiles were in that respect far more excuseable than Christians, because God had not discovered the Cheat and artifices of Evil Spirits to them, so as he hath done to us by the Christian Religion. Whatever pretence of miracles, or visions, or appearances there be, if the design of them be to advance a way of worship contrary to the Law of God, we have the same reason to believe that evil Spirits are the Causes of them, as the Primitive Christians had, that evil Spirits were worshipped by the Heathens under the notion of Good.

5. The Arrians believed Christ to be a Creature, and yet were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers. If it be said, that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ, than any do to Saints; I answer, that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him, far above any other Creatures whatsoever. But still that worship p. 520was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father, according to the opinion of those Persons I dispute against. For if it be impossible for a man that believes the incomparable distance between God and the most excellent of his Creatures, to attribute the honour due to God alone to any Creature; then, say I, it is impossible for those who believed one God the Father, to give to the Son whom they supposed to be a Creature, the honour which was peculiar to God. It must be therefore on their own supposition, an inferiour and subordinate honour; and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their Coelestial Deities. And although the Arrians did invocate Christ, and put their trust in him; yet they still supposed him to be a Creature, and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had, was given to him; so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God, whom they believed to be Supreme, Absolute, and Independent. But notwithstanding all this, the Fathers by multitudes of Testimonies already produced do condemn the Arrians as guilty of Idolatry: and therefore they could not believe, that the owning of Saints to be Gods Creatures did alter the p. 521State of the Controversie, and make such Christians uncapable of Idolatry.

2. I come to the second Period, §. 4.wherein Images were brought into the Christian Church, but no worship allowed to be given to them. And I am so far from thinking, that the forbearance of the Use of Images, was from the fear of complyance with the Pagan Idolatry, that I much rather believe the introducing of Images was out of Complyance with the Gentile worship. For Eusebius in that memorable Testimony concerning the Statue at Paneas, or Caesarea Philippi, which, he saith,Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 7. c. 18. was said to be the Image of Christ and the Syrophoenician woman, doth attribute the preserving the Images of Christ and Peter and Paul to a Heathen custome, which, he saith, was done foreign, i. e. saith Valesius, inconsideratè & imprudenter, contra veterem disciplinam, incautè: very unadvisedly, and against the ancient Rules of the Church. And yet (to my great amazement) this place of Eusebius is on all occasions produced to justifie the antiquity and worship of Images: if it had been only brought to prove, that Heathenish Customes did by degrees creep into the Christian Church, p. 522after it obtained ease and prosperity, it were a sufficient proof of it. Not that I think, this Image was ever intended for Christ or the Syrophoenician Woman, but because Eusebius saith, the people had gotten such a Tradition among them; and were then willing to turn their Images to the Stories of the Gospel. Where they finding a Syrophoenician Woman making her address to our Saviour; and a Tradition being among them that she was of this place, and there finding two Images of Brass, the one in a Form of a supplicant upon her Knees with her hands stretched out; and the other over against her with a hand extended to receive her, the common people seeing these figures to agree so luckily with the Story of the Gospel, presently concluded these must be the very Images of Christ and the Woman; and that the Woman, out of meer gratitude, upon her return home was at this great expence of two brass statues; although the Gospel saith,Mark 5.43.Mark 5:43 she had spent all that she had on Physitians before her miraculous cure: and it would have been another miracle, for such an Image of Christ to have stood untouched in a Gentile City during so many persecutions of Christians, especially when Asterius in Photius saith,Phot. Cod. 271. this very p. 523Statue was demolished by Maximinus. I confess it seems most probable to me, to have been the Image of the City Paneas supplicating to the Emperour; for I find the very same representations in the ancient Coines; particularly those of Achaia, Bithynia, Macedonia, and Hispania; wherein the Provinces are represented in the Form of a Woman supplicating, and the Emperour Hadrian in the same habit and posture, as the Image at Paneas is described by Eusebius. Imperatorum Numism. collect. à Duce Croyo edit. Gasp. Gevart. Tab. 39. n. 17, 18, 21, 22. Patini Numism. p. 194. Euseb. Chron. n. 2144.And that which adds more probability to this conjecture, is, that Bithynia is so represented, because of the kindness done by Hadrian to Nicomedia in the restoring of it after its fall by an earthquake, and Caesarea is said by Eusebius to have suffered by an earthquake at the same time; and after such a Favour to the City, it was no wonder to have two such brass statues erected for the Emperours honour. But supposing this tradition were true, it signifies no more, than that this Gentile custome was observed by a Syrophoenician Woman in a Gentile City; and what is this to the worship of Images in Christian Churches? For Eusebius doth plainly speak of Gentiles when he saith, it is not to be wondered that those Gentiles who received benefits by our Saviour should p. 524do these things; when, saith he, we see the Images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and Christ himself, preserved in Pictures being done in Colours, it being their custome to honour their Benefactors after this manner. I appeal to any man of common sense, whether Eusebius doth not herein speak of a meer Gentile custome; but Baronius in spight of the Greek will have it thus, quod majores nostri ad Gentilis consuetudinis similitudinem quàm proximè accedentes;Baron. ad A. D. 57. n. 112. at which place, Is. Casaubon sets this Marginal Note, Graeca lege & miraberis; but, suppose this were the sense of Eusebius, what is to be gained by it, save only, that the bringing of Images among Christians was a meer imitation of Gentilism, and introducing the Heathen customes into the Christian Church? Yet Baronius hath something more to say for this Image, viz. that being placed in the Diaconicon or Vestry of the Church of Paneas, it was there worshipped by Christians, for which he quotes Nicephorus; Nicephor. l. 10. c. 30.whom at other times he rejects as a fabulous Writer. And it is observable, that Philostorgius (out of whom Nicephorus takes the other circumstances of his relation) is so far from saying any thing of the worship of this Image, Philostorg. Eccles. hist. l. 7. c. 3.that he saith expresly the p. 525contrary, foreign giving no manner of worship to it; to which he adds the reason for it; because it is not lawful for Christians to worship either Brass or any other matter; no not although this Image were believed to represent Christ after his Incarnation. What shall be said to such an Author who not only omits so considerable a passage, but puts in words of his own directly contrary to his meaning? The Author of the Caroline Book, saith, that allowing this story to be true (which by comparing the relation of Asterius in Photius with what Eusebius, Sozomen and the rest say,Caroli Lib. de Imagin. l. 4. c. 15. Phot. Cod. 271. there seems to be some reason to suspect) yet it signifies nothing to the worship of Images; such a Statue being erected by a weak ignorant Woman, to express her gratitude after the best fashion among the Gentiles; and what doth this signifie to the Church of God? and supposing the miraculous cures to be wrought by the Herb that grew at the foot of the Statue; yet that doth not prove any worship of Images, but that men ought to leave their former Idols, and embrace the true Faith; for, saith he, according to the Apostle signs are not for Believers, but for Unbelievers. But if we allow the story as it is reported by p. 526Sozomen, Sozom. l. 5. c. 21.That the Christians gathered up the broken fragments of the Statue, and laid them up in the Church, I grant it proves that those Christians did not abhor the use of Images, although there be no proof of any worship they gave to them: and this seems to be as much as Petavius thinks can be made of this story.Petav. de Incarn. l. 15. c. 13. n. 4, 5.

But Baronius is not content with the Syrophoenician Womans example in this matter of Images, but he produces the Apostles Council at Antioch, Baron. ad A. D. 57. n. 111.and a venerable decree made by them there, which commands Christians to make Images of Christ instead of Heathen Idols; but our comfort is, that Petavius discards this as a meer forgery, Pet. l. 15. c. 14. n. 4.as most of the things of the latter Greeks, he saith, are; and yet Baronius saith, this Canon is made use of by the second Nicene Council; which shews what excellent Authorities that Council relyed upon. Nicolas de Clemangis is so far from thinking there was any Apostolical decree in this matter,Nic. de Clemangis de Novis celebrat. non instituend. p. 151. that he saith, the Universal Church did decree for the sake of the Gentile Converts, that there should be no Images at all in Churches; which decree, he saith, was afterwards repealed. I would he had told us by what Authority; and why other Commandments p. 527and Decrees might not be repealed as well as that?

The first authentick Testimony of any thing like Images among Christians, is that of the painted Chalices in Tertullian; Tertul. de Pudic. c. 7. & 10.wherein Christ was represented under the Embleme of a Shepherd with a sheep on his back; (as it was very usual among the Romans to have Emblematical Figures on their Cups) but was ever any man so weak among them, not to distinguish between the ornaments of their Cups and Glasses, and their Sacred Images? How ridiculous would that man have been, that should have proved at that time that Christians worshipped Images, because they made use of painted Glasses? If this signifies any thing, why do they quarrel with us, that have painted glass Windows in our Churches? All that can be inferred from hence is, that the Church at that time did not think Emblematical figures unlawful Ornaments of Cups or Chalices; and do we think otherwise? This I confess doth sufficiently prove that the Roman Church did think Ornamental Images lawful; but it doth no more prove the worship of Images, than the very same Emblem often used before Protestant p. 528Books, doth prove that those Books are worshipped by us.

I cannot find any thing more that looks like any evidence for Images for the first three hundred years; afterwards, there began to be some appearances of some, in some places; but they met with different entertainment, according to the several apprehensions of men. For although the whole Christian Church agreed in refusing to worship Images; yet they were of several opinions as to the Use of them. Some followed the strict opinion of Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, who thought the very making of Images unlawful; others thought it not unlawful to make them, but to use them in Churches, as the Eliberitan Bishops, and Epiphanius; others thought it not unlawful to have Images there, provided no worship were given to them. It is ridiculous to bring S. Hierom's Saucomariae, for any other purpose,S. Hieron. in Ion. 4.Jonah 4 than to prove that the Apostles Images were then seen upon their common drinking cups, of which he speaks; as any one may easily see that reads the passage, and the sport he makes with Canthelius about it: which will prove as much towards the worship of Images, as having the Apostles pictures on a pack of Cards would do.

p. 529Whatever the custome was in Tertullians time (if at least he speaks of the Sacred Chalices) we are sure in S. Augustines time there were no Images of mankind on the Sacred Vessels. S. Aug. in Ps. 113.Ps 113For although these, saith he, are consecrated to a sacred use, and are the work of mens hands; yet they have not a mouth and speak not, nor eyes and see not, as the Heathen Images had; and afterwards saith, that the humane figure doth more to deceive mankind, as to their worship, than the want of sense doth to correct their errour; and the great cause of the madness of Idolatry is, that the likeness to a living Being prevails more on the affections of miserable men to worship them, than their knowledge that they are not living doth to the contempt of them. Is it possible such a man as S. Austin was, could use such expressions as these, if in his time there had been any Images then used or worshipped in Christian Churches? What need he have so much as mentioned the Sacred Utensils, if there had been Sacred Images? and how could he have urged those things against Heathen Images, which would altogether have held as well against Christian? For it was not the opinion of the Heathens he disputed against, so much as p. 530the proneness of men to be seduced to worship such representations, which they find to be like themselves. To this Bellarmin answers,Bellarm. de Imag. l. 2. c. 9. that S. Augustin doth not say there were no Images in Churches, but only that the humane shape of Images did tend much to increase their errour who worshipped them for Gods. But would any man of common sense have used those arguments against Images, which do not suppose them already worshipped for Gods; but imply the danger of being seduced to that worship where ever they are, in case there were such Images in Christian Churches? The Worship S. Augustin speaks against, is adoring, or praying looking on an Image, (Quis autem ador at vel orat intuens simulachrum) which whosoever doth, saith he, is so affected as to think he is heard by that he prays before, and may receive help by it; and yet these persons S. Augustin disputes against, declare that they did not worship their Images for Gods, but only as the signs or representations of that Being which they worshipped. Which S. Augustin shews to be a most unlikely thing, because the manner of address, and the figure of their Images did shew that they did apprehend something more than meer signs in them whatever they pretended. I p. 531do not deny that there were pictures abroad in S. Augustins time,Aug. de consens. Evangel. l. 1. c. 10▪ of Christ and Peter and Paul, for himself doth mention them; but he declares so little reverence for them, that he saith they deserved to be deceived who looked on them as Books to be instructed by; and it was no wonder to see feigners of false doctrines to be led aside by painters. By which it is plain, S. Augustin did not think Pictures and Images to be such good helps for the Ignorant, as was afterwards pretended. And for those, who worshipped Pictures, S. Augustin doth not deny that there were such in his time, but, he reckons them among the ignorant and superstitious, Aug. de Moribus Eccles. Cath. c. 34.who by their practises did dishonour their profession of Christianity. So that although we grant in the time of S. Augustin there were several pictures of Holy men mentioned in Scripture in several places, yet there is no clear evidence that they were then brought into the African Churches any more than into those of Cyprus or Palestine; but they were in the latter end of the fourth Century in some of the more Eastern Churches, as appears by the Testimonies of Gregory Nyssen, and Asterius produced by Petavius and others.Petav. d… Incar. l. 15. c. 13. n. 7. Dallae. de Imag. l. 3. c. 4. And it is a very probable conjecture of Daillè, that in those parts of Pontus and p. 532Cappadocia, they were first introduced, out of a complyance with Gentilism; and in imitation of the practice of Gregory Thaumaturgus, whom Nyssen commends for changing the Heathen Festivals into Christian,Nyssen. vit. Greg. Thaumat. the better to draw the Heathens to Christianity; which seemed a very plausible pretence, but was attended with very bad success, when Christianity came to be by this means, but Reformed Paganism, as to the matter of divine worship. This same principle in all probability brought the Pictures of Martyrs and others into the Churches of Italy, of which Prudentius and Paulinus speak;Prudent. foreign. hymn. 9. Paulin. ep. 12. and this latter confesseth, it was a rare custome in his time to have Pictures in Churches,

—pingere sanctas

Raro more domos.

and thought it necessary to make an Apology for it,Poem. Nat. 9. p. 614. which he doth by saying, he looked on this as a good means to draw the rude and barbarous people from their Heathen Customes, changing the pleasure of pictures for that of drinking at the Sepulchres of Martyrs; but there is not the least intimation of any worship then given to them.

p. 5333. After that the Use of Images had prevailed both in the Eastern and Western parts,§. 5. men came by degrees to the worship of them: which is the third Period observable in this Controversie. As to which there are these things remarkable,

1. That it began first among the ignorant and superstitious people; of whom S. Augustin speaks in his time, that they were the worshippers of pictures; and afterwards in the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles it is observable,Greg. Ep. l. 9. ep. 9. that the people began to worship the Images in Churches in perfect opposition to Serenus their Bishop; who was so much displeased at it, that he demolished them, and brake them in pieces: which act of his so exasperated them, that they separated from his Communion. The news of this coming to Rome (probably from some of these Schismaticks, who alwayes loved to take Sanctuary in Rome, and appeal thither against their Bishops,) the Pope writes to the Bishop about it by one Cyriacus, he slights the Popes Letters, as if he could not believe they were written by him; Gregory being nettled at this, writes again to him; and reproves him for breaking down the Images, but commends him for p. 534not allowing the worship of them. So that we find the first beginning of the worship of Images in these Western parts to have been by the folly and superstition of the People expresly against the Will of their own Bishop and the Bishop of Rome. Bellarmin saith,Bell. de. Imag. l. 2. c. 16. that Gregory only reproved the Superstitious worship of Images, i. e. that by which they are worshipped as Gods. Which is a desperate shift in a bad Cause: For if Gregory had intended any kind of worship to be given to Images, could he not have expressed it himself? He speaks plain enough about this matter in all other things, why did he not in distinguishing what worship was to be given to Images, and what not? We praised you; saith he, that you forbad the worship of Images (so adorari must be rendred, and not according to the modern sense of Romish Authors who would against all sense and reason appropriate that word to Soveraign Worship) but we reprehended you for breaking them. It is one thing to worship an Image, and another thing to learn by it what is to be worshipped. That ought not to be broken down which was set up in Churches not to be worshipped, but Only to instruct the minds of the Ignorant. Would any man of common sense have said this, p. 535that did allow any worship of Images? Would Bellarmin, or T.G. or any that embrace the second Nicene and Tridentine Council have said that Images are set up in Churches ad instruendas solummodo mentes nescientium; only to instruct the ignorant? Nay Gregory goes yet farther, and tells Serenus, he ought to call his People together, and shew them from Scripture that it is not lawful to worship the Work of mens hands, because it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Which very place Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis, in his Epistle produced in the second Nicene Council, Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 4.thus expounds; Mark, saith he, only is joyned to serve, and not to worship, adorare quidem licet, servire nequaquam, saith the Latin Translation there; worship of other things is lawful but not the service, which is directly contrary to what Gregory saith, who makes the worship of any other thing unlawful from these words; and to conclude all, Gregory saith, forbid not those who would make Images; adorare verò Imagines modis omnibus devita, but by all means avoid the worship of them. What! no kind of worship to be allowed them? no distinction of an inferiour, honorary, relative p. 536worship? no, not the least tittle tending that way. But our Adversaries run from this Epistle to another to Secundinus to help them out, where they say Gregory approves the worship of Images; to which no other answer is needful, than that all that passage is wanting in the Ancient M S. as Dr. Iames hath attested upon a diligent examination of them:Iames Corrupt. of the Fathers, pa. 2. p. 76. and however, ought to be interpreted according to his deliberate sentence in the Epistle to Serenus, where he not only delivers his judgement, but backs it with the strongest Reason.

2. That the worship of Images no sooner prevailed, but it was objected against the Christians by the Iews and Gentiles. Thus it appears in the Apology of Leontius Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, written against the Iews, and read in the second Nicene Council (and if the Testimony of Constantinus Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus there extant,Concil. Nicen. 2. act. 4. p. 235. may be taken, he flourished in the time of Mauricius) in which the Iew is introduced, upbraiding the Christians with breaking the Commandment of God in the worship of Images, and Leontius is put to miserable shifts to desend it. And in the dispute between the Iew and the Christian in the fifth Action of that Council; the p. 537Iew saith, I am scandalized at You Christians, because you worship Images, Act. 5. p. 355.Acts 5expresly against the Command of God. And in the discourse of Iohn Bishop of Thessalonica, the Gentile saith,p. 354. Do not You Christians not only paint the Images of Your Saints, and worship them, but even the Image of your God too? so likewise think, that we do not worship the Images themselves, but those incorporeal powers which are worshipped through them. And this learned Bishop to make out the disparity between the Heathens and them flyes to this lamentable refuge, that they did not believe the Angels to be incorporeal as the Gentiles did, and therefore might better make Images of them. Which is not the thing I now observe; but only, that as soon as the worship of Images began, the Christians were sufficiently upbraided with it, by their enemies; and therefore it is most unreasonable to suppose, that if the same worship had prevailed before, the Iews and Gentiles would not have objected the same thing; when there were men that wanted neither advantages, nor ill will to do it.

3. That when the Controversie about the Worship of Images grew hot, the defenders of them made use of Treason and p. 538Rebellion to maintain their Cause. It would make one wonder to see how a late pretended Author of the History of the Iconoclasts in English hath endeavoured to accommodate that History to our Reformation in England, History of the Iconoclasts pretended to be published A.D. 1671. but written 1674. or rather extracted out of Mai… bourgs French History.making Henry 8. to be Leo Isauricus and Queen Mary to be Irene, (which is not much for her honour.) But suppose Henry 8. to be Leo, on whose side lay the charge of Rebellion, which it is most certain the Pope and his adherents were guilty of towards Leo? For Gregory 2. confesses in his Epistle to Leo, Greg. 2. epist. 1.that the people rebelled against him, out of zeal to their Images; and Onuphrius saith,Onuphr. Annot. in vit. Greg. 2. that by reason of Leo's opposition to Images, the Pope deprived him of the remainder of the Empire in Italy. And this worthy Historian himself saith, that the Romans and others then subject to Leo did not only throw down his Statues from the high places and pillars whereon they stood, but would no longer pay him any Tribute or obey his Orders; History of Iconocl. p. 44.and he confesses afterwards, that upon the Popes instigation they began a Defensive Conspiracy for Religion; (Just such another as the Irish Rebellion; p. 47.which that Author hath heard of) only this was far more bloody and cruel than the other. But P.T. is concerned for p. 539the Popes honour, saying, that what the Pope intended only for a defensive Confederacy for Religion, (sore against the Popes will) proved an offensive conspiracy against the Emperours temporal Right; in so much that all Italy renounced his dominion. Was the forbidding the paying Tribute to the Emperour only a defensive confederacy for Religion? Yet this Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glycas, Theophanes, Sigebert, Otto Frisingensis, Conradus Urspergensis, Sigonius, Rubeus and Ciacconius all agree to have been done by the Pope, Anastas. histor. p. 134. Zonar. Annal. To. 3. p. 85. Cedren. hist. To. 1. p. 453. Michel. Glyc. Annal. part. 4. p. 281. Theophan. hist. p. 338. Sigebert. ad A. 728. Otto Frising. l. 5. c. 18. Ursperg. ad A. 718. Sigonius de Regno Ital. l. 3. Rubei Hist. Raven. l. 4. Ciaccon. vit. Greg.upon the Emperours declaring against the Worship of Images. But I need go no farther than this**History of the Iconoclasts, p. 54. Historian, who delivers this for the doctrine of this Pope in a Synod at Rome on behalf of Images, viz. That it is against reason to believe, God would have a multitude of men, or all mankind to be damned rather than resist with armes, false doctrine favoured by one or a few Soveraigns, seeing Christ dyed rather to save Souls than to humour Soveraigns. Most primitive and Catholick doctrine! and happily applyed to the Worship of Images. But he goes on, as if he had been giving instructions for another Rebellion; that the Rule whereby they ought to judge of the time and lawfulness of their resistance, must not p. 540be their own fancies, but a real danger of altering the Catholick Faith, and the Soveraigns actual endeavours to do it. So that according to this blessed doctrine, a Rebellion on the account of Religion, is a just and holy War; and is it not easie to discern what such men would be at, who deliver this as the Doctrine of their Head of the Church in a Council of Bishops? If Gregory 2. said such things, he did but speak agreeably to his actings; if he did not, we know at least the mind of this Historian; who seems to have calculated his history for a Meridian nearer home.

4. It is observable, how great and apparent a change was made in the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church in this matter of Images, between the time of the two Gregories, the first, and the second, i.e. between A. D. 604. wherein the first Gregory died, and A.D. 714. wherein the second was made Pope. It would afford a man some pleasure to compare the Epistle of Gregorius M. to Serenus, with those of Gregory 2. to the Emperour Leo, and yet both these according to the Roman pretence Infallible Heads of the Church. We have already seen what the former Gregories opinion was, let us now compare it with his Name-sakes. He charges the p. 541Emperour Leo with using the very same words that his predecessour had done in this matter,Greg. 2. epist. 1. ad Leon. viz. that we are not to worship the Work of mens Hands; whereas, saith he, very wisely, those words were spoken in Scripture for the sake of such Paganish Idolaters, who worshipped golden, and silver, and wooden Animals (the Pope calls them foreign) and said, these are thy Gods, and there is no other God besides: (as though there ever had been such Fools in the World!) and for the sake of these Works of the Devils hands we are commanded not to worship them: but whatever is made by men for the honour of God ought to be worshipped; in spight of his Predecessours definition to the contrary in the very same case. And then he tells a very worshipful story of the Pictures that were taken of Christ and his Apostles by their Disciples; and of the Image Christ sent for a present to the King of Edessa; it is great pity the Veronica was forgotten by him; but that piece of Antiquity was not yet known. Then, he bids the Emperour go among the boys at School, and if he should say among them that he was an enemy to Images, they would throw their Table-books at his Head; because Children alwayes love Pictures; p. 542and a little after, he saith, he was like Ozias the King of the Iews that destroyed the brazen Serpent. It seems the Bible was then a Book not much studyed by the Head of the Church: for was it indeed Ozias that demolished the brazen Serpent? and was this such a reproach to Leo to be compared to good Hezekiah? And so very learnedly he falls to the commending the brazen Serpent, and inveighing against that insolent King that broke it in pieces? Was not this a hopeful piece of Infallibility! After this, our learned Historian saith,History of the Iconoclasts, p. 55. the Pope declared him not only an Heretick, but an Heresiarch; for what I beseech him? for being of the same opinion as to the worship of Images, that his Predecessour Gregory had been of? But see how the case is altered in a hundred years! In my mind, the Emperour Leo asked a very pertinent Question of the Pope; How comes it to pass that the six General Councils never said a word of Images, if they were such necessary things? And the Pope made as impertinent an answer; And why, saith the Pope, did they say nothing of eating and drinking? Greg. 2. ep. 2.it seems Images in his opinion were as necessary to Religion, as meat and drink to our bodies; for, he saith, the Fathers carried their Images p. 543to Council with them, and travelled with them; and I suppose slept with them too, as Children do with their Babies.

5. The artifices and methods ought to be observed whereby such a cause as the worship of Images, §. 6.was advanced and defended. For being destitute of any colour from Scripture, Reason, or Antiquity, there was a necessity of making use of other means to supply the want of these. Such as,

1. Representing their Adversaries to the greatest disadvantage; which is done to purpose in the fifth Action of the second Nicene Council. Concil. Nicen. 2. p. 347. ed. Labb.The demolishing of Images was condemned in Serenus by Gregory as an act only of intemperate zeal and indiscretion; but now it was become heresie, worse than heresie, Iudaism, Samaritanism, Manichaism, nay worse than all these. This Tarasius offers to prove in the beginning of that Action; from S. Cyril, he compares them with Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the Cherubim; from Simeon Stylites, to the Samaritans; and Iohn the pretended Vicar of the Oriental Bishops saith, the Samaritans are worse than other hereticks; therefore they ought to be called Samaritans; and Constantinus p. 544Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus saith, they are worse than Samaritans. p. 349.Afterwards the same Iohn saith, see how clearly we have demonstrated that the Accusers of Christians (in this matter of Images) are partakers with Nebuchadonosor, and Samaritans, p. 370. p. 383.and Iews and Gentiles and Manichees, and those who denyed that Christ was come in the Flesh. Why? what is the matter? what article of the Christian Faith have they denied? what! have they renounced Christianity, and been circumcised! No: but worse; being Christians they call the worship of Images Idolatry. O dangerous heresie, and horrible blasphemy! But it may be worth our while to consider a little the account which Tarasius desires Iohn to give the Council of the beginning of this most detestable heresie;p. 386. viz. that after the death of Solyman Caliph of the Arabs, Homar succeeded him, after whom followed Ezid or Jezid a vain man; in his time there was at Tiberias one Sarantapechys a Leader of the Iews, and a Magician; who promised long life to the Chaliph on condition he would do what he would have him; which he presently undertook with great promises of rewards to him; then the Iew required an Edict for the demolishing p. 545and defacing all the Images in the Christian Churches; which was accordingly executed by the Iews and Arabs. The news of which excited the Bishop of Nacolia, and those about him to do the same thing; but Jezid lived not above two years and a half after; and his Son Ulid destroyed this Iew, and the Images were again restored. This was the story told and approved in the Council; but Zonaras saith,Zonar. Annal. Tom. 3. p. 84. they were two Iews who perswaded Jezid to publish his Edict against Images, and that he dyed within the year; and that his Son seeking to punish them, they were fled into Isauria, where they met with Leo then a young man to whom they foretold the Empire, and made him promise them that when he came to is, he would do one thing for them: which one thing proved to be the destruction of Images; and they challenging their promise when he was now Emperour gave the occasion to the terrible persecution of Images. Cedrenus saith,Cedren. hist. To. 1. p. 450. that a few years before the Reign of Leo, some Iews of Laodicea in Phoenicia went to Jezid, and obtained the Edict against Images, and then he tells the rest of the story, as Zonaras did. Theophanes saith,Theoph. Chronog. p. 336. it was but one Iew of Laodicea, and that Jezid dyed before the Edict was published in all parts of p. 546his Dominions, and saith, this was in the seventh year of the Empire of Leo. Constantinus Manasses, and Michael Glycas only mention the Iews foretelling the Empire to him, Const. Manass. p. 86. Mich. Glyc. Annal. part. 4. p. 281.and putting him upon the destruction of Images, without the other circumstances. Let the Reader now judge whether this be not a probable story; and purposely invented to cast the odium of rejecting the worship of Images on the Iews and Saracens? as though it could never have come from any Christian. It was one Iew, saith the Vicar of the Oriental Bishops; they were two Iews or more, say the Greek historians. It was a Iew of Tiberias, saith Iohn; no, saith Cedrenus, they were two Iews of Laodicea; but one saith Theophanes. These Iews met with Leo when he was a young man and foretold the Empire to him, say Zonaras, Manasses and Glycas; but a few years before the Reign of Leo, saith Cedrenus; nay, saith Theophanes, it was in the seventh year of Leo; in the eighth, saith Baronius, Baron. A. 723. n. 17, 21.for Jozid did not reign before. Was there ever a more consistent story than this? But the Author of the late history of the Iconoclasts, History of the Iconoclasts, p 28, 33.thinks he hath found out a salvo for these contradictions. For he makes two several Edicts under two Jezids p. 547that were Chaliphs; the former of the two Iews about A. D. 686. who were the men that foretold the Empire to Leo, and the other of Sarantapechys to Jezid the second in the time of Leo; this he hath borrowed from the French Author, as he hath done all his quotations (and I much question by his manner of citing them, whether he ever saw the Books he quotes in his Life.) But this is said without the least shadow of proof; for no one of all the Historians, ever mention two Edicts of the several Iezids; but all pretend to tell the very same story. And is it probable that the two Iews who foretold the Empire to Leo, A. D. 686. should come to Constantinople to Leo, after A. D. 723. when Leo began to oppose Images; meerly with a design to extirpate Images, without proposing any other advantage to themselves by the Emperour, as the Greek historians say? Credat Iudaeus. They are a sort of people, that know how to improve such an advantage to better purposes; and their zeal against Images was never so great, as the love of their own Profit. But our English Historian is not content with the Fables of the Greeks; but he makes more of his own. For, he saith, these were Samaritan Sectaries, who were more p. 548precise than the rest of the Iews, and were much troubled at the Cherubims in the Temple, and more at the respect which the Christians tendered to the Images of Christ and his Saints. I never saw a more pittiful pretender to History than this Author; who, if he offers to add to, or vary from his Original, he makes the matter worse than he found it. For not one of his Authors in the Margin, say they were Samaritans but only Hebrews, as Zonaras, and Cedrenus; his other Authors Elmacinus, and the Chronicon Orientale have not one word about it, where they mention Iezid the Chaliph of Arabia. And yet granting they were Samaritans, there is not the least ground for his saying, they were more precise in this matter of Images than the rest of the Iews; for Epiphanius himself,Epiphan. l. 1. heres. Samarit. p. 25. whom he quotes, suspects them of secret Idolatry in Mount Gerizim, and the Iews generally charge them with it: for they say, they worship the Image of a Dove on Mount Gerizim;Exercit. Anti-Morin. Sect. 16. which Maimonides affirms of them with great confidence, and Obadias Bartenora, with several others. It was therefore very unhappy for this Historian to pitch upon the Samaritan Sectaries of all others, as the Beginners of the heresie of the Iconoclasts. And was it not luckily done to p. 549begin a History with so palpable a falshood! But this was a pretty artifice to possess his Reader at the entrance, that none but Samaritan Sectaries could be enemies to the worship of Images: which, he knew, to have been the method of the second Council of Nice: only he pursued it with greater Ignorance than they.